United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide
Source:
AP
URL Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... AULT&CTIME=2015-06-26-10-02-52
Published: Jun 26, 2015
Author: AP staff
Post Date: 2015-06-26 10:23:13 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 8952
Comments: 101
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States. Gay and lesbian couples already could marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The court's 5-4 ruling means the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. Poster Comment: No surprises.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *Religious History and Issues* (#0)
Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
It's a dark week for the nation and the Constitution. If we weren't in a post- Constitutional America before ;we are now . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Anthony Kennedy should be awarded a swastika to wear on his robe. Is there any president over the decades who has ever done more to radically alter American life than Kennedy? I don't think even the Warren Court did as much damage as Kennedy has done over the decades.
State laws and state constitutions be damned. The justices decided gay marriage was a constitutionally protected federal right and that this right also applied to all the states. Wow. Talk about overreaching. I am speechless.
Make it three swastikas -- including the black, the rainbow, and one red swastika for the blood of millions of murdered babies drenching his black robe. Is there any president over the decades who has ever done more to radically alter American life than Kennedy? Nope. THE deciding swing vote on seemingly every crucial SC verdict.
The big let down for all the fags will be the next big case, where a religious institution refuses to marry two pickle kissers and the USSC upholds the constitutional right to religion. I figured, based on the wording of the 14th, the highest court was gonna force states to be forced to at least grant the license... but physically forcing a priest, pastor or chaplain to conduct such an OBAMAnation... will be the real fight for fags. After that, religions will be considered "hate groups"... and not religions. It shall be interesting as we are forced to walk down this fudge packing path. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I have already thought about this too....it's coming.
No, there isn't is there? This process to turn America into Sodom has NEVER turned to the legislative votes. Funny, huh? Fix was in. AS USUAL. This is judicial anarchy. The Left has a monopoly on subversive representation. And shouldn't the three pro-gay radical witches on the SC have recused themselves? FIVE judges now overturned the will of We The People. Just ahead of this were the SIX who promoted the unconstitutional 0dingaCare as legal. The three branches of government ( the supposed "checks and balances" processes of this so-called Republic) are a charade, a sham, and disgraceful bodies of corruption.
The darkest day for the court was Roe v. Wade. Since then they have been making 'moral' life and death decisions. R v. W the SCOTUS opened the door to define when human life begins or does not begin. What is or is not human life. How much lower could the nation go than R v. W? So adding sodomy to their kit bag when murder was already the biggest millstone around their neck, does not surprise me at all. God help us all. Maranatha! Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Just think, the filthy fudge packing, nasty cock gobbling Meguro, can't even celebrate here. Such a shame. lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Since then they have been making 'moral' life and death decisions. R v. W the SCOTUS opened the door to define when human life begins or does not begin. What is or is not human life. How much lower could the nation go than R v. W? Without a doubt the darkest day. It legalized murder of the unborn -- the most innocent of human life. Adding sodomy to their kit bag when murder was already the biggest millstone around their neck, does not surprise me at all. Nope, no surprise at all. Anti-Christian, anti-God Liberals, leftists, and the secular humanist narcissists are gleeful, wallowing in their own graves, celebrating. God will help us individually; As a nation, we are cursed. His hammer of justice and Satan's untied hands will befall America like it's never seen.
HA! But we know he is reading this with absolute glee, celebrating in his favorite underground Japanese bathhouse.
I give it three months, if that, before the gay lobby finds ways to sue churches who refuse to 'marry' gays. The law suits are coming no matter what people say is 'impossible' because of the 1st Amendment. This court does not care for the letter of the law as we saw this week with Obolocare. They will find a way to make the 14th amendment interpret the 1st. They will do the same with the 2nd amendment too. The 10th amendment was just scrapped with this decision and the obolocare decision. So cross off #10 of the Bill of Rights if you are keeping score at home. Might as well cross off #9 as that was abandoned decades ago. So churches be warned. The gay lobby is coming for your elders, pastors, priests and rabbis. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
2 Thessalonians 2: Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. 16 Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, 17 comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Can't wait for the reactions from the GOP 2016 field. Have not looked but I gather all will give some luke warm approval to the decision and breathe a sigh that they don't have to 'worry' about this on the campaign trail. I'll take a guess the only three who come out strongly against this are Santorum, Perry, and Cruz. Probably in that order. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Yesterday, the Republican Party gave us Obamacare, via the Supreme Court which they control. Today, the Republican Party gave us universal gay marriage, via the Republican Supreme Court. Let the excuses for the Republicans begin to flow. But know this: they are all lies. The Republicans appointed the judges that gave us Roe v Wade, and the Republicans controlled the court that expanded Roe v Wade, and the Republicans gave us Kelo, and Obamacare and gay marriage. That is the legacy of the Republican Party since 1973: being the final, decisive political force that enacted abortion, property confiscation, socialized medicine and gay marriage into constitutional law. Now listen to all of the Republican rubes howl about the Democrats. It's comical.
And Republicans were the decisive votes that made it happen. You always know what the Democrats are going to do. And if you pay attention, you always know that the Republicans will ratify it. They'll put up a fight, but in the end enough Republicans are always there to make it happen. A vote for Republicans is a vote for having Democrat policies while being able to pretend that you oppose them. That's all it is.
You'll know how that will turn out if the dictators of the Supreme Court force the Little Sisters of the Poor to fund abortion coverage. Heil, Kennedy!
Not as comical as your jihad against the GOP, the only force defending the unborn against unlimited abortion and defending marriage against pervs. You secretly agree with these Court decisions. You're an Anthony Kennedy type. More "Catholic than the pope" but more Lefty than Earl Warren. You don't fool anyone here.
He might sign up just to crow.
I agree 100%. The subversive 14A is THE bloody sledgehammer that destroys freedom (in the name of "promoting" it.) The neo-Fascist Amerikan State aims to crash God's House. It won't turn out well.
See above quote from later in the posted article. I remember you mentioning, I believe, on LP this a year ago. That the number of homosexuals actually seeking 'marriage' was a small population. Seems UCLA did some stats on this. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Amen!
That is the legacy of the Republican Party since 1973: being the final, decisive political force that enacted abortion, property confiscation, socialized medicine and gay marriage into constitutional law. Now listen to all of the Republican rubes howl about the Democrats. It's comical. I cannot argue your approach as GOP presidents DID appoint the left leaning justices. The other question is how long can Catholic bishops keep giving communion to the 6 justices who are Roman Catholic? John Roberts (Chief Justice) Roman Catholic G.W. Bush 2005 Antonin Scalia Roman Catholic Reagan 1986 Anthony Kennedy Roman Catholic Reagan 1988 Clarence Thomas Roman Catholic G.H.W. Bush 1991 Ruth Bader Ginsburg Jewish Clinton 1993 Stephen Breyer Jewish Clinton 1994 Samuel Alito Roman Catholic G.W. Bush 2006 Sonia Sotomayor Roman Catholic Obama 2009 Elena Kagan Jewish Obama 2010 Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Whomever amongst the gazillion GOP candidates does NOT is not worth a thin dime. I can see Cruz and Santorum. What -- no Bush?? ;-)
You're a lousy mindreader. Gay marriage is not marriage. I do not agree that the Constitution protects it at all. The ObamaCare statute was written as it was written. That is what the legislature passed. I am certain that we need universal single payer health insurance, as they have in France. And I am certain that the government needs to operate that program. I am also certain that ObamaCare is not the way to do it, and that the Supreme Court wrongly applied the law. I oppose Kelo. I think that the takings clause applies exclusively to the taking of private land for a government purpose, and that it is a theft and abuse of government power to take private land for private purposes using government power. I oppose Roe. Abortion is murder and should be so considered by the Supreme Court. Abortion is unconstitutional: it is the taking of an innocent life without conviction of a capital crime. Four Republican Court decisions, all of which I do not "secretly agree with". I openly oppose. I also oppose the Republican Party on free trade. It has destroyed the American industrial base and put workers out of work. I oppose the Republican Party's tax regimes. I opposed the Republican Party on TARP and TALF and the bank bailouts that enriched bankers and impoverished everybody else. I opposed the Republican Party when they rewrote bankruptcy laws at the start of the crisis specifically to nail individual citizens to the cross while vastly enhancing the power and rights of the institutions which the Republicans then bailed out with TARP and TALF. I oppose the Republican Party in their endless overseas wars that always fail. I oppose the Republican Party for approving Obama's Fast Track. I oppose the Republican Party for granting illegals amnesty under Reagan, and then for leaving the borders open and conniving at replacing American workers ever since. I oppose the Republican Party because they are incompetent assholes who lose wars, kill people, have completely corrupted the government, and because the Supreme Court they've controlled since Nixon gave us Abortion, and doubled down on it, and Kelo, and Gay Marriage, and ObamaCare. I stand up to individual Republicans, because Republicans who oppose all of these things that the Republicans do but refuse to see it as as blind and stupid as inner city Blacks who vote for Democrats who screw them over and over again. White Republicans and Black urban Democrats have a lot in common: willful blindness is at the top. I oppose the Democrats because they are babykillers. I oppose the Democrats because their idea of running schools is Greek: lavish benefits but protect bad performers from consequences. I oppose the Democrats because they want those borders left open in order to replace the electorate. I oppose both parties because they both suck. But the Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court since I was six, and the very worst, fixed, unchangeable features of America have all been nailed down and cemented in concrete by the REPUBLICAN Party, not the Democrats, through the Republican Supreme Court. You say "You don't fool anyone here". YOU are the fool here, for pretending to yourself that the Republicans are pro-life. No. Their Court gave us Roe, and Casey, and now just gave us Obamacare. You're loyal to the Republicans, and they stand for things you oppose. You refuse to acknowledge it, ever. You fool lots of people. You pretend to be pro life, but you support the Party of Roe, of Casey and of Obamacare. The SUPREME COURT imposed those things forever, and the SUPREME COURTS that did it were all controlled by Republicans, who could have stopped those things, but instead cast them in the iron and concrete of Supreme Court opinions. I point it out. And you pretend that I'm the villain for point out that the Republicans are, in FACT, the villains. You're a villain because you're a Republican, and because you try to hide how evil they are, and because you come after me every time I tell the truth. You should be agreeing with me and we should be walking together. Instead, you support the Republicans, who GAVE US ABORTION, and GAY RIGHTS, and OBAMACARE, and KELO, and FAST TRACK. You know how you Republicans always mewl and puke about how Democrats do this and that? Well, your REPUBLICAN officials are the ones who cast all of the final decisions.
Now listen to all of the Republican rubes howl about the Democrats. It's comical. You always return to a Dem = GOP meme. It's not that simple. It has been the leadership establishment of the GOP that has been responsible for GOP fecklessness and collaboration with the satanic Dems. 25-50% of the GOP have consistent been pro-life, pro-family; 0% of the Dems. You have been maligning, indicting, judging, then sentencing GOP conservatives. This is not right nor based on truth.
Unlike you, I'm not locked into the republican/democrat paradigm. This is a one party country with two branches - just for show. But in the kabuki dance we call politics, here's how I see it. The democrats act as the "shock troops" They're the advancing army.(if you call destroying a culture "advancing). They're the ones who take the figurative bullets when they take new territory. When the hayseeds and the rubes (i.e. the people) have had enough, they then turn to the republicans. The republicans, however, are not an opposition party (as some seem to think). The are, rather, the "occupying army." The occupy the territory, and solidify the gains the dems have made. And the cycle then repeats. Over and over.
yes there is a talk show host here who said SCOTUS did the GOP a huge favor in the last 2 days . Now they don't have to scramble to find a fix for the subsidies Now they don't have to make a public position on homosexual marriage. Make them take a stand for religious liberty . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Gee, I wonder if this ruling will encourage the Moslem (pigpiss be unto them) death cult to ponder increasing tolerance? Can't wait to see how black churches and death-cult mosques will react to the democRats trying to press the issue.
5 or 6 un-elected justices out of a nation of over 300 million do NOT represent "us."
Do statistics provide THE REAL Red Flag and enemy?? Number of Catholics on the US Supreme Court: 6 Conspicuous to say the least.
But their "religion" is secular humanism. Across the board, the occupying subversives within the political arena, academe and media have redefined the language, ergo "slavery" is now redefined as "liberty." All bets are off.
Besides abortion. What do you oppose the democrats on? Say they all changed to pro life. Would you then support them over Republicans?
Today, the Republican Party gave us universal gay marriage, via the Republican Supreme Court. You sure do spin. Reagan nominated Bork, then Ginsburn. then Kennedy slipped it. The only opposition to the faggots is from Republicans. ' You write well but you sure are wrong a lot.
Libertator: the buck stops with the Captain of the Ship. If a ship runs aground in the night because the Officer of the Deck read the charts wrong, it's the junior officer's fault, of course, but it's also the Captain's fault for not training the JO, for letting him have the watch when he wasn't prepared. The Captain of the ship cannot escape liability for what his lieutenants do. Do you EVER see Democrat Supreme Court justices are major politicians break ranks on any important issue, ever. EVER? Do they EVER suddenly betray the principles of their party? Ever? Name me an instance where a Democrat Supreme Court justices has suddenly surprised everybody by turning on his or her party? Name me a time, in a vote on anything crucial, where a Democrat ever defaulted? It hasn't happened once in my adult life. Democrats keep discipline. They do not allow people into positions of decision and leadership who do not have the discipline to stand for what the party stands for. They campaign on things, and then when elected they bull forward and DO what they said they were going to do. I don't like a lot of things they do, but I acknowledge their discipline. I acknowledge that their politicians tell the truth about what they're after, and their justices don't hide who and what they are. They say it, they do it, and they bull forward to the finish line if they can. If they are defeated, it is never because some Democrat Supreme Court justice stabs them in the back, or there are a bunch of insurgent Democrats who bring down the President or his party. It never, ever, ever has happened, not even once, in all of the years I have been voting. The Republicans PRETEND that it happens to them all the time. They pretend that Republican Presidents appoint justices but "who knows what the Justices will do"? Who could have predicted? Well, I can predict. And I'm usually right. What I will predict is that the Democrats never, ever, ever, ever, have even one justice who suddenly betrays them and turns on them and torpedoes their platform. It doesn't happen. With Republicans, it happened with abortion (twice), and property rights, and gay marriage, and ObamaCare (twice). Over and over again it happens, and it always happens on the MOST CRITICAL THINGS. When the chips are down and, say, the Republicans are about to force conservatives onto the appeals courts, "suddenly" 4 Republican Senators break ranks and form the "gang of this or that", and the actual victory is lost. But then, do the Republicans DISCIPLINE the Senators who do that? No. Then, in the next election cycle, the Republicans make the guy who torpedoed the conservative court packing policy their friggin' NOMINEE. But you expect people to not hold the REPUBLICAN PARTY accountable for what the leading, powerful Republicans actually DO over and over. You say that we are wrong for maligning the Republican Party for what the Captains of the Ship DO, again and again. Your position is nuts. It's simply nuts. You have affiliated yourself with the Republican Party and given it too much of your heart and soul. Essentially, you've married a cheating wife, and you're ready to beat up anybody who points it out to you. Well, you have. The Republican Party is your harlot wife. The Captains of the Ship fail you, but you still think that, somehow, the galley crew down shoveling coal in the hold is the REAL ship, and that the ship should not be all accountable for the decisions of its leadership. The truth about ships is that when they run into reefs and sink, the crew in the hold all drown too. The Republican Party cannot escape vilification for what its Senators and Supreme Court Justices and Presidents and Congressional leaders do. That IS the Republican Party. Conversatives who cling to them and get the back of the hand all the time are NOT the REAL Republicans. Roberts and Kennedy and Boehner and McConnell and McCain, the real men in real power with the real titles and the real control - THEY are the Republican Party. Republicans like you are just battered girlfriends and cuckolded husbands who don't want to hear or know the truth. You're damned right I malign and vilify the Republicans. Look at what they have DONE. I vilify the rank and file Republicans who won't break ranks with the GOP for being foolish thralls. If you value what you believe in, you need to scrape your Republican Party affiliation off your boots like the shit that it is and stand up and be an independent man. Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas. That's the way it is. You cannot change the Republican ship, but you can stop sailing on it. You choose not to, pretending that its yours. The lawn boy at the country club is there everyday and gets to eat in the back of the clubhouse, but he is not a member and never will be. And that's you in the Republican Party. Get the hell out of there. It's beneath you to keep affiliating with those turds. They're NEVER going to listen to you, because they ARE, in fact, Romney and McCain, Boehner and McConnel and Graham and Roberts and Kennedy. That's the GOP. It's not going to ever be different. Yelling at ME for telling you the truth: Republicans are scum bunks, is willful blindness. Open your eyes, and see, and walk out of there. Reclaim your manhood and your pride. Stop lying down with dogs. Stop defending them. The Captain of the Ship is responsible. The Republican Ship has SHOWN you its colors again and again. You're not going to mutiny and take over. Get off that ship.
The Catholic Bishops will keep doing it forever. They're wrong, and the institutional Church has lost its way, just as it did back in the middle ages. Perhaps Christianity lost its way when it institutionalized. It does not seem to serve Christ very well to have sunk all of that money into buildings and lands and vestments and high salaries for priest and preachers. That wasn't how the Apostles lived, or Jesus. They would have taken all that money spent on those things and gained sheep for the flock by feeding the poor. Perhaps that's the problem with the Church, and the churches, all along. They want to be career paths. But they're not intended to be that.
That's it in a nutshell. The GOP faithful are more dishonest, that's the only difference.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf PDF: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015* Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition. Each District Court ruled in petitioners’ favor, but the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed. Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28. (a) Before turning to the governing principles and precedents, it isappropriate to note the history of the subject now before the Court. Pp. 3–10. (1) The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respondents, it would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriage, seek it for themselves because of their respect—and need—for its privileges and responsibilities, as illustrated by the pe- - - - *Together with No. 14–562, Tanco et al. v. Haslam, Governor of Tennessee, et al., No. 14–571, DeBoer et al. v. Snyder, Governor of Michigan, et al., and No. 14–574, Bourke et al. v. Beshear, Governor of Kentucky, also on certiorari to the same court. - - - - - [2] titioners’ own experiences. Pp. 3–6. (2) The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations. This dynamic can be seen in the Nation’s experience with gay and lesbian rights. Well into the 20th century, many States condemned same-sex intimacy as immoral, and homosexuality was treated as an illness. Later in the century, cultural and political developments allowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public attitudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soonreached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law. In 2003, this Court overruled its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186, which upheld a Georgia law thatcriminalized certain homosexual acts, concluding laws making same-sex intimacy a crime “demea[n] the lives of homosexual persons.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 575. In 2012, the federal Defense of Marriage Act was also struck down. United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___. Numerous same-sex marriage cases reaching the federalcourts and state supreme courts have added to the dialogue. Pp. 6– 10. (b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27. (1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry. To be sure, these cases presumed a relationship in- - - - - - [3] volving opposite-sex partners, as did Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question. But other, more instructive precedents have expressed broader principles. See, e.g., Lawrence, supra, at 574. In assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected. See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453–454. This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. Pp. 10–12. (2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply withequal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the Due Process Clause. See 388 U.S., at 12. Decisions about marriage are among the most intimatethat an individual can make. See Lawrence, supra, at 574. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation. A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right tomarry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same rightas opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy acriminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567. A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___. This does not mean that the right to marry isless meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate. [4] Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage. The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. Pp. 12–18. (3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way. Rights implicit in liberty and rights secured by equal protection may rest on different precepts and are not always coextensive, yet each may be instructive as to the meaning and reach of the other. This dynamic is reflected in Loving, where the Court invoked both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause; and in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, where the Court invalidated a law barring fathers delinquent on child-support payments from marrying. Indeed, recognizing that new insights and societal understandings can reveal unjustified inequality within fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged, this Court has invoked equal protection principles to invalidate laws imposing sex-based inequality on marriage, see, e.g., Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455, 460–461, and confirmed the relation between liberty and equality, see, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 120–121. The Court has acknowledged the interlocking nature of these constitutional safeguards in the context of the legal treatment of gays and lesbians. See Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 575. This dynamic also applies to same-sex marriage. The challenged laws burden the liberty of same-sex couples, and they abridge central precepts of equality.The marriage laws at issue are in essence unequal: Same-sex couples are denied benefits afforded opposite-sex couples and are barred from exercising a fundamental right. Especially against a long history of disapproval of their relationships, this denial works a grave and continuing harm, serving to disrespect and subordinate gays and lesbians. Pp. 18–22. (4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protec - - - - - [5] tion Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. (5) There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Bowers, in effect, upheld state action that denied gays and lesbians a fundamental right. Though it was eventually repudiated, men and women suffered pain and humiliation in the interim, and the effects of these injuries no doubt lingered long after Bowers was overruled. A ruling against same-sex couples would have the same effect and would be unjustified under the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioners’ stories show the urgency of the issue they present to the Court, which has a duty to address these claims andanswer these questions. Respondents’ argument that allowing same-sex couples to wed will harm marriage as an institution rests on a counterintuitive view of opposite-sex couples’ decisions about marriage and parenthood. Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths. Pp. 23–27. (c) The Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed out of State. Since same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States, there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Pp. 27–28. 772 F. 3d 388, reversed. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined.
LOL haven't you been paying attention to Hondo's posts:)? Bush and Clinton are the same. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Perhaps that's the problem with the Church, and the churches, all along. They want to be career paths. But they're not intended to be that. I agree. Seemed worship of the 'called out ones' was even done joyfully by a river: Acts 16: 13 And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. Simple and practical. A river close so they could baptize! Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
They sure did try hard to use "couples" as often as possible...Of course to rule out using this decision to usher in law suits for polygamy. But that is coming soon to a Mormon theatre near some desert state with a lot of Mormons:) Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Apologies...meant to ping you. I want to make sure you get the credit. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
If a ship runs aground in the night because the Officer of the Deck read the charts wrong, it's the junior officer's fault, of course, but it's also the Captain's fault for not training the JO, for letting him have the watch when he wasn't prepared. The Captain of the ship cannot escape liability for what his lieutenants do. Vic, there's been a mutiny within the GOP leadership, yet you've failed to acknowledge it OR notice it. The mutiny began during Reagan's last couple of years as his globalist officers began betraying the Party platform, principles and American sovereignty. There are STILL good Republican-Conservatives battling the subversive tidal wave; If NOT for them, we'd already be drowned in a sea of Fascist-Leftism. Give THEM credit for not bailing out on the ship! Do you EVER see Democrat Supreme Court justices are major politicians break ranks on any important issue, ever. EVER? Do they EVER suddenly betray the principles of their party? Ever? Name me an instance where a Democrat Supreme Court justices has suddenly surprised everybody by turning on his or her party? Name me a time, in a vote on anything crucial, where a Democrat ever defaulted? I agree with your observation that the Dem Party is a monolithic subversive fighting force (aided and abetted by a monolithic attack-dog liberal-Left media and academe), but you're still not GETTING THIS. The point is: The Dems are a cohesive, subversive occupying Army; The GOP is divided and conquered, ruled by it's mutinous Vichy Republicans. This has been the case since Reagan surrendered his admin to the treasonous GH Bush and his cabal of "compassionate conservatives," aka FAKE conservatives. ERGO, you have 100% of the Dems + 50% of the GOP. That imbalance in power (and Vichy "leadership" at the helm of the GOP) can NOT be overcome at this point in time -- if ever. You expect people to not hold the REPUBLICAN PARTY accountable for what the leading, powerful Republicans actually DO over and over. You say that we are wrong for maligning the Republican Party for what the Captains of the Ship DO, again and again. Your position is nuts. It's simply nuts. You have affiliated yourself with the Republican Party and given it too much of your heart and soul. Again, I am emphasizing the root cause of GOP fecklessness, betrayal, and reptilian surrender of moral/ethical principles and sovereignty: A LEADERSHIP THAT HAS BEEN HIJACKED SINCE the last 1980s by pro-globalist, One World Order elites. It's that simple. You still have not provided a political alternative that is a Game-Changer. Moreover, I have NOT give my "heart and soul" to the GOP; Not close. I merely recognize that any kernels and sparks that re-ignite the Founders' spirit of justice and intent in *any* numbers can ONLY be found within the corrupt body of the GOP. Do you think we'll find it in the corpse of the Dem Party? Because NO Third Party has emerged to fill the void, what is YOUR solution? B*tching and moaning about the GOP's known whores and tools isn't helping us win any political battles. Most of us have vilified the Republican Party as phonies since Dubya and a GOP-dominated Congress did NOTHING to promote conservative policies. You cannot change the Republican ship, but you can stop sailing on it. You choose not to, pretending that its yours. Fine. Let EVERY Dem win EVERY election. Remove EVERY sentry from the castle wall. Bend over. Great strategy. (Oh wait -- you HAVE no political strategy, do you?) This is a spiritual war, Vic. The God -fearing and their values are under siege. Your boogieman, your devil, your scapegoat is not the Republican Party; It's those who betray the Lord. They who rule the roost as part of the GOP elite are subversive puppets, doing the bidding of special interests and international elites. "Republican" is just a worn costume. Those Catholics who've voted over the years to keep supporting 0-Care, Gay "Marriage," Abortion, Affirmative Action, Special "Rights," etc., have not only betrayed this Republic, but worse -- they've betrayed God. Half of the current six Catholics are a disgrace and betray not only America, but the Lord. It's quite easy to find fleas amongst us, isn't it? Yelling at ME for telling you the truth: Republicans are scum bunks, is willful blindness. Open your eyes, and see, and walk out of there. Reclaim your manhood and your pride. Stop lying down with dogs. Stop defending them. I defend only those Republican who defend the USCON and the tenets and intent of the Founders. Were it not for them, ALL guns would have already been seized -- as well as your home, the rest of your "rights" -- as well as your property. That pesky 1A? Whatever Republicans are left to do battle -- it is THEY who will retain whatever right you have to speak your mind at a forum like this. NOT Democrats. The Captain of the Ship is responsible. The Republican Ship has SHOWN you its colors again and again. You're not going to mutiny and take over. Get off that ship. Get off this ship and then what? DROWN?? Or swim to *your* island? Who will protect and speak for your "rights"? Democrats? Bernie Sanders? Some yet unknown Third Party savior? We have ONE chance to turn back the enemy. That is within a core of Never-Say-Die conservative GOP stalwarts who never give up.
In a vote for supporting the 2A, who ya gonna call? 1) Democrats. If it's Dems, then you're NOT posting right now; Instead you're writing with a stick in the mud by the barbed wire fencing. IN A FEMA CAMP. Conservatives have only ONE party to join -- that is the GOP (unfortunately.) They haven't been able to replace its reptilian, treasonous leadership since Reagan left. Boehner and McConnell are ostensible Dems. Supported by half the Republican Party. In the meantime, why don't you two chaps establish a viable third party? I'll support you.
Apologies...meant to ping you. I want to make sure you get the credit. *Chuckling*...(tho it hurts.)
You on the mend? How you doing?
Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
It. Will. Never. Happen. It takes a certain perversity to make such a statement. On same-sex marriage bans, Republicans took the lead virtually everywhere in the country, including Congress. It was the Dems (and Anthony Kennedy) who changed that. Typically, you reserve all your scorn only for the GOP.
A rather routine practice in the early churches. They didn't have a temple or established meeting place which helped them avoid the incitement of pagans to magistrates to persecute them. And "believe and be baptised" was taken very seriously. If they actually believed, there could be no excuse for not being baptized. A quick test to weed out a lot of easy-believerism, particularly among the "god-fearer" faction that had grown up around many Jewish synagogues of the era.
Thanks for asking, bro. Mending as fast as the good Lord can sew :-)
It was the Dems (and Anthony Kennedy) who changed that. Typically, you reserve all your scorn only for the GOP. Concur here with TC in both cases. ONLY conservative Pubbies have been the thorn in the side of the homofascist crusade and roadblock to insanity. Pubbies by and large (even RINOs) have been THE roadblock to scuttling the 2A. Instead of 6 Catholics, imagine were there 6 Protestants on this SCOTUS? Of all the CTs out there, THIS one where not a single Protestant exists among 9 SC justices is conspicuously obvious. I think it's safe to assume NONE of these unconstitutional decisions gutting family values and the Founders' intent, life and liberty would be the life-changers they've become.
It is difficult to see why the federal definition of marriage would not extend to plural marriage. The right of same-sex marriage arises from no historical precedent. Plural marriage has biblical precedent and multinational precedent, including U.S. precedent. Any legal basis for the imposition of a federal definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage would seem to support a claim for plural marriage. Why would denial of same-sex marriage be unconstitutional discrimination, but denial of plural marriage not be unconstitutional discrimination? Does a mixed sex trio not have the same concerns about hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and the right to express their love for one another? One may readily contrast Kennedy with Kennedy. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf United States v Windsor, US Sup Ct 12-307 (26 Jun 2013) Kennedy for the Court Precisely two years ago, in Windsor, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated at page 16-17 of the slip opinion:
Damn the 14th Amendment to Hell. That's where it was written. Adding insult to injury wasn't quite enough. Kennedy was "joined" by a bunch of angry lebso leftists and anarchists. Here this little weasel was compelled to write the majority opinion? IMO, Kennedy and Roberts flipped a coin for the "honor" of joining GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN. (5) There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. HUH?? What a crock authored by Kennedy. An "enhanced understanding of the issue" is how he characterizes the grave misjudgment of the Constitution and sanction of perversion? Despite We-The-People having spoken through several referenda as well as through the legislative level...our consensus and representation have been wiped out out just the same. By black robed tyrants and a fascist, over-officious fedgub "Grassroots campaigns" participants have been targeted for political-partisan (Dem) assassination, ostracizing, and intimidation. The media and academe have also been guilty in joining the lynchings. Kennedy alludes to "Studies and writings" -- really?? Since when? He and his four other social-satanic anarchists have already spit on and discounted historical cultural precedence, the Bible, will of We The People, and 5,000 years of tradition.
This case opens the door for ANY "right" for ANY "marriage" -- based on the 14A. Welcome "plural" marriages, reduced age-consent marriages, inter-species marriages, and whatever other perverse arrangement can be made. Does a mixed sex trio not have the same concerns about hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and the right to express their love for one another? Now impossible not to extend the same "right" for the entire triad. This SCOTUS decision has delivered the final the death knell for ALL States' Rights. Today the haters of America, Western Civ, and God are celebrating like a bunch of Nero's in Sodom. I had the one solo liberal-left friend of mine left (from childhood) gleefully text me:
Gotta love the inconsistencies. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
>
Except Hillary's more macho, and likes girls. Jeb! will drop out, after he screws up the early primaries real good. Rubio's the one! To lose to Hillary. P. Bush 2024?
DISSENTING OPINION OF JOHN ROBERTS (EXCERPTS) Roberts dissent at 3, Roberts dissent at 4, Roberts dissent at 9-10: The majority purports to identify four “principles and traditions” in this Court’s due process precedents that support a fundamental right for same-sex couples to marry. Ante, at 12. In reality, however, the majority’s approach has no basis in principle or tradition, except for the unprincipled tradition of judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45. Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law. Roberts dissent at 10: Roberts dissent at 15: Roberts dissent at 16: Roberts dissent at 18: Roberts dissent at 19: Roberts dissent at 19-20: Roberts dissent at 20-21: It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J.1977 (2015). I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either. Roberts dissent at 22: Roberts dissent at 25: Roberts dissent at 25-26: Roberts dissent at 26-28: But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N. C. L. Rev. 375, 385–386 (1985) (footnote omitted). Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs. Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority—actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1. Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses. Roberts dissent concluding at 26-28: I respectfully dissent.
Thanks show off:)
Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
The common denominator about the USSC decision is simple to understand: the government owns the institution of marriage and not religious institutions or considerations. The result allows anyone to marry just about anyone along as they are of legal age and pass a blood test which is simple to perform at the state level. The Institution of Marriage is not owned by religious doctrine which (for the most part) specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman in America within the reign of holiness and vowels, particularly within the Christian Church. The outcome shall be to change the definition of religious marriage or marriage within a church to something like --> fucking for God.
The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’sown conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny themthis right.” Ante, at 19. Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner. See 198 U. S., at 61 (“We do not believe in the soundness of the views which uphold thislaw,” which “is an illegal interference with the rights ofindividuals . . . to make contracts regarding labor upon such terms as they may think best”). Where was his clear reasoning earlier in the week. Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation; he is my defence; I shall not be greatly moved. (Psalm 62:1-2)
Ask the Pope. Then again, who is he to judge? Did Pope Francis really tell a divorced woman to take Communion? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
There has never been a federal marriage license. It has always been a state affair and the claim of federal constitutional authority to dictate a federal definition of marriage is on very shaky grounds. I think they did away with blood tests.
The 14th amendment limits marriage to "two people"? Where? Seems to me the equal protection clause would allow three people to marry. Or any number. Incestual marriages would be allowed under equal protection, along with child marriges. This decision is going to turn into another Roe v Wade -- never to be settled -- because it should have been decided by the people, not the court.
The court is saying that a chosen sexual lifestyle entitles an individual to the 14th amendment right of Equal Protection, and every state must comply. I see a major problem developing. Society (the people) can no longer set moral standards.
Developing? LOL.. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Describes most of the Pubbie party. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
This turned out pretty much like I envisioned another mess to be cleaned up when "common sense" people are put in charge again. The problem with that is it probably won't happen during my lifetime. History is a repeating cycle good rules for awhile then sooner or later evil takes over again, wash, rinse, repeat. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I don't think it will take that long, $5 says there are some out there that have already been filed, even though they had no standing then they do now. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
My initial thought exactly. It's over. But not without a brawl.
Describes most of the Pubbie party. A good half I'd say. The biggest problem are the Puppetmeisters and so-called "leadership," which are part One-Worlder globalist, part closet Dem, and part statist-fascist. They bully, threaten, and coerce the weak members and control the agenda and direction of the GOP (straight into the handbasket into Hell.)
You mean one of those bar stool swinging brawls? :)
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
I was just going to a Christian church to pray for America ... but your post caught my eye. What are Americans going to do?
In my wildest dreams ;-)
Amen, BUCK!! (But you mean after your ring-around-the-rosie 'round the Ol' Oak Tree?) What are Americans going to do? 1/3 will celebrate the demise of America, 1/3 will passively await for orders to receive the Mark of the Beast and FEMA Camp number, and the other 1/3 will pray before tossing around barstools and breaking bottles.
I have no doubt that if the "good half' stood tall and said no to "the faux conservative agenda" their voting constituency would reward them. It would also bring more of what the "faux conservatives" are doing out into the light for other voters to peruse, and hopefully they would take it out on them at the ballot box. I've never believed in the 3rd party rhetoric!! “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Last time I was in one of those was when I was 17 and was at the Garage Nightclub in New Carlisle, Ohio. Place has long since closed but that was one ass wild night. It all started because of some sore ass losers at the pool tables didn't want to pay up their side bets after the pool tournament was over with. Needless to say that was the last time we ever got invited to attend one of their tournaments. Even though we didn't start the brawl we still walked out with all the money!! :) “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
It would also bring more of what the "faux conservatives" are doing out into the light for other voters to peruse, and hopefully they would take it out on them at the ballot box. I've never believed in the 3rd party rhetoric!! The ballot box -- a huge part of our problem has been the cliched "Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils." This has been the case since Reagan left. THESE are the Pubbies who've taken over the Party, ruined the brand, the party, and the core platform. Given all that, the GOP still does control most of the state house legislatures and governorships. People must still believe in their core principles (unfortunately long since abandoned by most reps.) Doesn't seem to translate into more conservative policies and agenda though, does it? Unlike the Dems (who seem to maintain a unified focus and monolithic goal) the GOP spans too much of the political spectrum and is too diluted to focus on a common goal. It itself has been divided & conquers as a party. THIS is our primary problem. Ergo, our wishes for true representation (through no fault of our own) has been short-circuited. Our agenda, a conservative agenda has fallen in the hands of a subversive, corrupt faux Republican leadership. They are painfully and obviously puppets controlled by external anti-America overlords.... UNTIL these puppetmeister-overlords are exposed, I can't see the GOP turning things around on its own soon -- do you? And no, we don't have enough time or energy to establish a viable Third Party. If this were a game of chess, we've been Check-Mated.
Lol...HEY! Who's ID did you use, kid??!? Musta been a Friday night, full moon, everybody was just paid. It all started because of some sore ass losers at the pool tables didn't want to pay up their side bets after the pool tournament was over with. Needless to say that was the last time we ever got invited to attend one of their tournaments. Even though we didn't start the brawl we still walked out with all the money!! :) NOT gonna pay after losing? Doesn't usually end well. Good times ;-) Aaaah -- the wild, the innocent, and the E Street shuffle (Springsteen album reference.) Cops wind up arriving? Did you go back the next week?
yeah ... somethin' like that.
Cops wind up arriving? Did you go back the next week? I was in there with my Dad he used to own his own bar and all of the bar/club owners seemed to know each other back then. So as long as I only drank water/pop it was alright, I went in there many times over the years. Also a lot of the bars sponsored a pool tournament periodically to give the guys something to do during the winter months and also fodder for bragging rights as the best pool shot. Needless to say after that night it got curtailed quite a bit cause it started to attract an out of town rougher than normal crowd. (Always some asshole gotta spoil the fun). :( Heck the places I go to now allow kids in to eat and play video games all the time, no big deal. The one I go to the most has a police station about 100yds down the street, so needless to say it's a safe place for families. And the cops leave you alone no hiding on the outskirts of town waiting to catch you DUI. They share a kitchen with a carry out pizza place so the food is really good, may not be DDD quality food (Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives) but good nevertheless. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Not voluntarily. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Just don't have the right people in the right places, we have faux conservatives in the wrong places. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Also a lot of the bars sponsored a pool tournament periodically to give the guys something to do during the winter months and also fodder for bragging rights as the best pool shot. Needless to say after that night it got curtailed quite a bit cause it started to attract an out of town rougher than normal crowd. (Always some asshole gotta spoil the fun). :( Kinda cool. Only you and Pop sharing that? Good memories, eh? Yeah, eventually the outta towners swoop in, the stakes get dangerous high, and it's no longer "recreation"; It's about "manhood" (for the insecure.) Fun: RUINED. Like pool. The places I go to now allow kids in to eat and play video games all the time, no big deal. The one I go to the most has a police station about 100yds down the street, so needless to say it's a safe place for families. And the cops leave you alone no hiding on the outskirts of town waiting to catch you DUI. They share a kitchen with a carry out pizza place so the food is really good, may not be DDD quality food (Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives) but good nevertheless. Small-town, normal USA. Decent food, regular crowd. Glad they still exist. Now IF you do find a DDD to hang out at (and it's in Jersey) let me and Chuck know. ALL these great places seem to be a thousand miles away from us :-( Btw -- Knew of a couple in Indiana who spent their entire 2-week vacation visiting DDDs (they had THE BOOK and MAPS!)
Nope, the odds of the GOP pulling a Lazarus is slim and none. Even IF the right people do what has to be done. The GOP brand died with Reagan. The day Poppy Bush announced his BS "Compassionate Conservativism" meme was THE day you knew he was shoveling the dirt on the Gipper's grave, and the "Republican Party" getting sabotaged. The day Poppy announced his "New World Order" meme was the day you knew America's funeral was already planned.
HA! Succinctly put. (Why can't the GOP have a plan like the Houston Astros?? Given up for dead...A laughing stock. NOW look at 'em. Trying to crush Texas, the Angels and the rest of the West. Hardly recognize 'em (as the Yanks were lucky just to split.)
You mean like the Texas Rangers? It seems that there is only room for one good team in Texas at a time. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex [and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp 3-28.] The Court did not say the 14th Amendment limits marriage to "two people." In saying a license had to be issued to two people of the same sex, it said nothing of three or more people. At my #52, I opined that, Does a mixed sex trio not have the same concerns about hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and the right to express their love for one another? After reviewing the dissenting opinions, I saw that Chief Justice Roberts expressed a similar concern. Roberts at 20: It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J.1977 (2015).
Or incestual marriage. Now that the federal government is defining marriage, what will be the nationwide age of consent? In Alabama, it's 14 (with parental consent).
Activist courts have used the 14th amendment to apply constitutionally protected rights (eg., free speech in the first amendmnent) to the states. In this decision, are they saying the right to gay marriage was also found in the 14th amendment?
Here check this out... http://www.flavortownusa.com/states/ “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Yea some of the side bets were up around $100 and this was 40 years ago.. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
California: 18, no minimum with approval of a superior court judge and parental consent. New Hampshire: 18, 14 for males and 13 for females, in cases of "special cause" with parental consent and court permission.
They said the right of same-sex couples is "fundamental" ... according to their "reasoned judgment." That can apply to anything that is found in the enlightened "reasoned judgment" of five of nine. I posted the full text of Scalia's dissent here on another thread.
Palace Diner in Berlin, NJ - just off of (1/4 mile) It's owned by a family of Greek folks. They serve mostly Now I have not tried the chicken parm at every restaurant www.thepalacediner.net EDIT: Also I've heard that their deserts are astounding.
As many as there are they could take a 2 year (or longer) road trip to hit all of the ones listed on that website link I gave you. But hey if they have the time and the money and it's what they love to do then why the heck not. When I was in Pisa, Italy in the winter of 1980 me and my friends stopped into a little joint right off the main plaza where the Leaning Tower was. We ran into this couple (with 2 kids) from Australia, they were taking 1 year to do an around the world tour. There weren't that many people in there that night and when they heard us speaking English they introduced themselves pulled up a chair and made themselves right at home. We spent the next 4 hours talking to them about where all we lived and places we had visited and of course drinking copious amount of beer, you know the Auzzies. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
A little place I go to when I'm in the area is a traditional Greek restaurant ran by this very large Greek family. The food there is always better than any other place I go that claims to be cooking/selling Greek cuisine. Their Gyros taste so much different (and better) than everybody else's, they must be seasoning their meat differently. I used to go to the annual Greek festival they have here in town but after they opened for business that stopped... :) “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Almost 30 years ago I and a group of friends regularly went But the most amazing thing were the prices - LOW, amazingly I would have rather spent twice as much for the food and had But it was great while it lasted. It got to the point where
Read it. Thank you. The guy writes entertaining opinions.
We used to have a Vietnamese place like that here about 10 years ago, great food but hardly anybody ever went there so they went out of business too. There have been 3 or 4 other restaurants in the same building since then none last more than 2 years, bad location I guess but there is a strip mall right across the street to help attract business. Now about 1/4 mile up the street there is a Mexican restaurant that manages to stay open even though the food isn't very good, go figure. The place used to be owned by a "little old lady" when I was a kid and the food was outstanding, better than any I ever ate in Texas. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
So is this a reflection on the restaurant or on you? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#2. To: redleghunter, All (#0)
#3. To: redleghunter (#0)
#4. To: redleghunter (#0)
"The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States."
#5. To: TooConservative (#3)
Anthony Kennedy should be awarded a swastika to wear on his robe.
#6. To: misterwhite (#4)
#7. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite (#6)
...where a religious institution refuses to marry...
#8. To: redleghunter (#0)
No surprises.
#9. To: tomder55, TooConservative, liberator, misterwhite, CZ82, GarySpFc, Vicomte13 (#2)
It's a dark week for the nation and the Constitution.
#10. To: Liberator (#8)
#11. To: redleghunter, tomder55, TooConservative, misterwhite, CZ82, GarySpFc, Vicomte13 (#9)
(Edited)
The darkest day for the court was Roe v. Wade.
#12. To: GrandIsland (#10)
(Edited)
#13. To: GrandIsland, liberator, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, BobCeleste, CZ82 (#6)
I figured, based on the wording of the 14th, the highest court was gonna force states to be forced to at least grant the license... but physically forcing a priest, pastor or chaplain to conduct such an OBAMAnation... will be the real fight for fags.
#14. To: Liberator (#11)
God will help us individually; As a nation, we are cursed. His hammer of justice and Satan's untied hands will befall America like it's never seen.
#15. To: tomder55, TooConservative, liberator, misterwhite, CZ82, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, *2016 The Likely Suspects* (#9)
#16. To: redleghunter (#0)
#17. To: Liberator (#8)
FIVE and SIX
#18. To: GrandIsland (#6)
The big let down for all the fags will be the next big case, where a religious institution refuses to marry two pickle kissers and the USSC upholds the constitutional right to religion.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
Now listen to all of the Republican rubes howl about the Democrats. It's comical.
#20. To: GrandIsland, meguro (#10)
Just think, the filthy fudge packing, nasty cock gobbling Meguro, can't even celebrate here. Such a shame. lol
#21. To: redleghunter, GrandIsland, liberator, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, BobCeleste, CZ82, nolu chan (#13)
I give it three months, if that, before the gay lobby finds ways to sue churches who refuse to 'marry' gays. The law suits are coming no matter what people say is 'impossible' because of the 1st Amendment. This court does not care for the letter of the law as we saw this week with Obolocare. They will find a way to make the 14th amendment interpret the 1st. They will do the same with the 2nd amendment too. The 10th amendment was just scrapped with this decision and the obolocare decision.
#22. To: TooConservative (#3)
There are an estimated 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States, according to UCLA's Williams Institute, which tracks the demographics of gay and lesbian Americans. Another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed would get married in the next three years, the institute says. Roughly 1 million same-sex couples, married and unmarried, live together in the United States, the institute says.
#23. To: redleghunter (#14)
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
Let the excuses for the Republicans begin to flow. But know this: they are all lies. The Republicans appointed the judges that gave us Roe v Wade, and the Republicans controlled the court that expanded Roe v Wade, and the Republicans gave us Kelo, and Obamacare and gay marriage.
#25. To: redleghunter (#15)
(Edited)
I'll take a guess the only three who come out strongly against this are Santorum, Perry, and Cruz. Probably in that order.
#26. To: TooConservative (#19)
"You secretly agree with these Court decisions"
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
That is the legacy of the Republican Party since 1973: being the final, decisive political force that enacted abortion, property confiscation, socialized medicine and gay marriage into constitutional law.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
Now listen to all of the Republican rubes howl about the Democrats. It's comical.
#29. To: TooConservative, liberator, misterwhite, CZ82, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, (#15)
#30. To: redleghunter (#0)
(Edited)
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
And Republicans were the decisive votes that made it happen.
#32. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#24)
I cannot argue your approach as GOP presidents DID appoint the left leaning justices. The other question is how long can Catholic bishops keep giving communion to the 6 justices who are Roman Catholic?
Number of Protestants on the US Supreme Court: ZERO
#33. To: tomder55 (#29)
(Edited)
Make them take a stand for religious liberty .
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
Yesterday, the Republican Party gave us Obamacare, via the Supreme Court which they control.
#36. To: Liberator (#27)
#37. To: redleghunter (#24)
#38. To: Vicomte13, GOP, more bull, shuck 'n jive too, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#17)
A vote for Republicans is a vote for having Democrat policies while being able to pretend that you oppose them.
#39. To: redleghunter (#1)
01 - Syllabus
06 - Kennedy, for the Court
40 - Roberts, Dissenting
69 - Scalia, Dissenting
78 - Thomas, Dissenting
96 - Alito, Dissenting
103 - END
#40. To: Liberator (#25)
What -- no Bush?? ;-)
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
Perhaps Christianity lost its way when it institutionalized. It does not seem to serve Christ very well to have sunk all of that money into buildings and lands and vestments and high salaries for priest and preachers. That wasn't how the Apostles lived, or Jesus. They would have taken all that money spent on those things and gained sheep for the flock by feeding the poor.
#42. To: nolu chan (#39)
#43. To: Hondo68 (#40)
What -- no Bush?? ;-) LOL haven't you been paying attention to Hondo's posts:)? Bush and Clinton are the same.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
Libertator: the buck stops with the Captain of the Ship.
#45. To: hondo68, Vicomte13 (#38)
(Edited)
The GOP faithful are more dishonest, that's the only difference.
2) Republicans
#46. To: redleghunter (#43)
(What -- no Bush?? ;-) LOL haven't you been paying attention to Hondo's posts:)? Bush and Clinton are the same.)
#47. To: Liberator (#46)
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
You should be agreeing with me and we should be walking together.
Well, your REPUBLICAN officials are the ones who cast all of the final decisions.
#49. To: redleghunter (#41)
Simple and practical. A river close so they could baptize!
#50. To: redleghunter (#47)
#51. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#48)
On same-sex marriage bans, Republicans took the lead virtually everywhere in the country, including Congress.
#52. To: redleghunter (#42)
(Edited)
They sure did try hard to use "couples" as often as possible...Of course to rule out using this decision to usher in law suits for polygamy.
In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).
#53. To: nolu chan, ALL (#39)
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
#54. To: nolu chan, redleghunter (#52)
Any legal basis for the imposition of a federal definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage would seem to support a claim for plural marriage. Why would denial of same-sex marriage be unconstitutional discrimination, but denial of plural marriage not be unconstitutional discrimination?
"TWO days 2 wins! How bout dat SCOTUS!!!"
#55. To: nolu chan (#52)
In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).
#56. To: redleghunter (#24)
>
Justice Religion President Year John ROBERTS, CJ Roman Catholic George W. Bush 2005 Antonin SCALIA, J. Roman Catholic Ronald Reagan 1986 Anthony KENNEDY, J. Roman Catholic Ronald Reagan 1988 Clarence THOMAS, J. Roman Catholic George H.W. Bush 1991 Ruth Bader GINSBURG, J. Jewish Bill Clinton 1993 Stephen BREYER, J. Jewish Bill Clinton 1994 Samuel ALITO, J. Roman Catholic George W. Bush 2006 Sonia SOTOMAYOR, J. Roman Catholic Barack Obama 2009 Elena KAGAN, J. Jewish Barack Obama 2010
#57. To: redleghunter, *2016 The Likely Suspects* (#43)
Bush and Clinton are the same.
#58. To: redleghunter (#0)
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the “right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.” There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—moreprecisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”? The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or two.
Petitioners first contend that the marriage laws of their States violate the Due Process Clause. The Solicitor General of the United States, appearing in support of petitioners, expressly disowned that position before this Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 38–39. The majority nevertheless resolves these cases for petitioners based almost entirely on the Due Process Clause.
Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into themost sensitive category of constitutional adjudication. Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution. See ante, at 3, 14. They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’srequirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without “due process of law.”
The majority’s driving themes are that marriage isdesirable and petitioners desire it. The opinion describes the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,” “denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution. Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 28. Nobody disputes those points. Indeed, the compelling personal accounts of petitioners and others like them are likely a primary reason why many Americans have changed their minds about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant.
In short, the “right to marry” cases stand for the important but limited proposition that particular restrictionson access to marriage as traditionally defined violate due process. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here.
In sum, the privacy cases provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189, 196 (1989); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 35–37 (1973); post, at 9–13 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Thus, although the right to privacy recognized by our precedents certainly plays a role in protecting the intimate conduct of same-sex couples, it provides no affirmative right to redefine marriage and no basis for striking down the laws at issue here.
Perhaps recognizing how little support it can derivefrom precedent, the majority goes out of its way to jettison the “careful” approach to implied fundamental rights taken by this Court in Glucksberg. Ante, at 18 (quoting 521 U. S., at 721). It is revealing that the majority’s position requires it to effectively overrule Glucksberg, the leading modern case setting the bounds of substantive due process. At least this part of the majority opinion has the virtue of candor. Nobody could rightly accuse the majorityof taking a careful approach.
The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’sown conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny themthis right.” Ante, at 19. Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner. See 198 U. S., at 61 (“We do not believe in the soundness of the views which uphold thislaw,” which “is an illegal interference with the rights ofindividuals . . . to make contracts regarding labor upon such terms as they may think best”).
One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people. Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013), appeal pending, No. 144117 (CA10). Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.
The majority’s understanding of due process lays out a tantalizing vision of the future for Members of this Court: If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of law. The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now.
Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. Ante, at 9, 10, 23. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” Ante, at 19. The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.
Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.” Ante, at 8. In our democracy,debate about the content of the law is not an exhaustion requirement to be checked off before courts can impose their will. “Surely the Constitution does not put either thelegislative branch or the executive branch in the positionof a television quiz show contestant so that when a given period of time has elapsed and a problem remains unresolved by them, the federal judiciary may press a buzzer and take its turn at fashioning a solution.” Rehnquist, The Notion of a Living Constitution, 54 Texas L. Rev. 693,700 (1976). As a plurality of this Court explained just lastyear, “It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds.”
When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. “That is exactly how oursystem of government is supposed to work.” Post, at 2–3 (SCALIA, J., dissenting).
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
#59. To: nolu chan (#56)
#60. To: nolu chan (#58)
#61. To: nolu chan (#58)
Roberts dissent at 19-20:
#62. To: redleghunter, All (#24)
I cannot argue your approach as GOP presidents DID appoint the left leaning justices. The other question is how long can Catholic bishops keep giving communion to the 6 justices who are Roman Catholic?
#63. To: buckeroo (#60)
The common denominator about the USSC decision is simple to understand: the government owns the institution of marriage and not religious institutions or considerations. The result allows anyone to marry just about anyone along as they are of legal age and pass a blood test which is simple to perform at the state level.
#64. To: nolu chan (#39)
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex"
#65. To: nolu chan (#63)
(Edited)
#66. To: misterwhite (#65)
I see a major problem developing. Society (the people) can no longer set moral standards.
#67. To: Liberator, Vicomte13 (#44)
"compassionate conservatives," aka FAKE conservatives.
#68. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#9)
Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide
#69. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#13)
I give it three months, if that, before the gay lobby finds ways to sue churches who refuse to 'marry' gays. The law suits are coming no matter what people say is 'impossible' because of the 1st Amendment. This court does not care for the letter of the law as we saw this week with Obolocare. They will find a way to make the 14th amendment interpret the 1st. They will do the same with the 2nd amendment too. The 10th amendment was just scrapped with this decision and the obolocare decision.
#70. To: CZ82, redleghunter (#68)
....when "common sense" people are put in charge again. The problem with that is it probably won't happen during my lifetime.
#71. To: CZ82, Vicomte13 (#67)
"compassionate conservatives," aka FAKE conservatives.
#72. To: Liberator (#70)
#73. To: Liberator (#70)
It's over. But not without a brawl.
#74. To: CZ82 (#72)
You mean one of those bar stool swinging brawls? :)
#75. To: buckeroo, CZ82, redleghunter (#73)
(Edited)
I was just going to a Christian church to pray for America ...
#76. To: Liberator (#71)
A good half I'd say.
#77. To: Liberator (#74)
#78. To: CZ82 (#76)
(Edited)
I have no doubt that if the "good half' stood tall and said no to "the faux conservative agenda" their voting constituency would reward them.
#79. To: CZ82 (#77)
Last time I was in one of those was when I was 17 and was at the Garage Nightclub in New Carlisle, Ohio. Place has long since closed but that was one ass wild night....
#80. To: Liberator (#75)
(But you mean after your ring-around-the-rosie 'round the Ol' Oak Tree?)
#81. To: Liberator (#79)
Lol...HEY! Who's ID did you use, kid??!? Musta been a Friday night, full moon, everybody was just paid.
#82. To: Liberator (#78)
I can't see the GOP turning things around on its own soon -- do you?
#83. To: Liberator (#78)
People must still believe in their core principles (unfortunately long since abandoned by most reps.) Doesn't seem to translate into more conservative policies and agenda though, does it?
#84. To: CZ82, Chuck_Wagon (#81)
I was in there with my Dad he used to own his own bar and all of the bar/club owners seemed to know each other back then. So as long as I only drank water/pop it was alright, I went in there many times over the years.
#85. To: CZ82 (#82)
#86. To: CZ82, redleghunter (#83)
Just don't have the right people in the right places, we have faux conservatives in the wrong places.
#87. To: Liberator (#86)
Why can't the GOP have a plan like the Houston Astros??
#88. To: misterwhite (#64)
Syllabus of Obergefell v Hodges.
The 14th amendment limits marriage to "two people"? Where? Seems to me the equal protection clause would allow three people to marry. Or any number.
It is difficult to see why the federal definition of marriage would not extend to plural marriage. The right of same-sex marriage arises from no historical precedent. Plural marriage has biblical precedent and multinational precedent, including U.S. precedent. Any legal basis for the imposition of a federal definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage would seem to support a claim for plural marriage. Why would denial of same-sex marriage be unconstitutional discrimination, but denial of plural marriage not be unconstitutional discrimination?
One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people. Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013), appeal pending, No. 144117 (CA10). Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.
#89. To: nolu chan (#88)
"It is difficult to see why the federal definition of marriage would not extend to plural marriage."
#90. To: nolu chan (#88)
#91. To: Liberator, Chuck_Wagon (#84)
Small-town, normal USA. Decent food, regular crowd. Glad they still exist. Now IF you do find a DDD to hang out at (and it's in Jersey) let me and Chuck know. ALL these great places seem to be a thousand miles away from us :-(
#92. To: Liberator (#84)
It's about "manhood" (for the insecure.) Fun: RUINED.
#93. To: misterwhite (#89)
In Alabama, it's 14 (with parental consent).
#94. To: misterwhite (#90)
In this decision, are they saying the right to gay marriage was also found in the 14th amendment?
#95. To: CZ82 (#91)
(Edited)
Small-town, normal USA. Decent food, regular crowd.
route 73 - where the Berlin Circle USED to be.
It's the biggest intersection in Berlin - look at
mapquest.
Italian food. The reason I mention it is the chicken
parmesan. Best I've ever had. Mmmmm...
in the Philadelphia area - but there is no need to.
Understand? It's really good. But it depends on who's
doing the cooking. Some times it's better than others.
I'm a diabetic so I have not tried them, but they sure look darn good.
(Especially the cheesecake.)
#96. To: Liberator, Chuck_Wagon (#84)
#97. To: Chuck_Wagon (#95)
It's owned by a family of Greek folks.
#98. To: CZ82 (#97)
...a traditional Greek restaurant...
to a Greek restaurant (a different place than the diner).
Excellent food. A family run place - the youngest girl would
stand by your table and cater to you every whim - the boy
would wait your table. (This was the place where I first ate
Feta cheese. On a Greek salad...)
low - actually TOO low - because when the fire inspector
decreed that they had to upgrade the sprinkler system in
the kitchen, they could not afford it and had to close.
the place been able to stay in business.
we would go there for dinner once a week.
Sadly the place was almost always nearly empty - even though
we 'talked the place up' with other friends and family.
They were hanging in there - until the fire inspector came.
#99. To: nolu chan (#94)
"I posted the full text of Scalia's dissent here on another thread."
#100. To: Chuck_Wagon (#98)
I would have rather spent twice as much for the food and had the place been able to stay in business.
#101. To: Chuck_Wagon (#98)
Sadly the place was almost always nearly empty - even though we 'talked the place up' with other friends and family.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]